Morning Joe - MS NOW Reports: Iran planning 'exclusion zone' near the Strait of Hormuz

Episode Date: September 7, 2026

September 7, 2026 - 8am:MS NOW Reports: Iran planning 'exclusion zone' near the Strait of Hormuz To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Let's again talk about gas prices. How soon should Americans see these go down? We know you have this deal with Venezuela that could take years before we see any effect of that. Will we see a change before the midterms? When will we see those gas prices go down? Well, if you look at the futures prices, you wanted to buy today in bulk gasoline for two months out in November, it's about 35 cents cheaper than it is today. So the marketplace thinks gasoline prices are going to move meaningfully lower. So trust the market, certainly don't trust my predictions. Energy Secretary Chris Wright saying, we shouldn't trust his predictions. The Secretary did say back in March that there would be a very good chance that, that gas prices would be under $3 a gallon by the busy summer travel season. We'll bring you the latest from the Middle East after more strikes from U.S. forces this weekend. Iran announcing plans for an exclusion zone. We'll explain what that is just ahead.

Plus, we'll go through diplomatic talks involving the president's son-in-law and his special envoy, who had a separate meetings with Ukrainian president, Voldemir Zelensky, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Plus, we'll have an update on the deadly crash yesterday in Miami. after an Amazon cargo plane went off the runway. And good morning. I'm Jackie Alamini on this Monday, September 7th, Labor Day. And welcome to MS Now Reports. We hope everyone is enjoying the holiday weekend.

We've got a lot to get to this hour, so let's dive right in. We're starting with the latest developments out of the Middle East, where Iran will soon announce an exclusion zone near the Strait of Hormuz, where it'll be targeting vessels attempting to transit the waterway, as well as a new shipping route for the strait apparently agreed to with Oman. That's according to the new head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. He said yesterday that the new zone will begin from the line of the U.S. naval blockade. He added that any ship that enters the area with the intention of passing through the strait

and is identified will be placed on Iran's sanctions list. That announcement comes a day after U.S. forces struck three Iranian oil tankers in retention, retaliation for Navy warships being targeted with Iranian ballistic missiles. U.S. Central Command posting this video online on Saturday, with a message from Admiral Brad Cooper threatening to destroy Iran's limited and exposed oil fleet. Iran yesterday also claimed it had struck an unmanned American military vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, but the U.S. military is calling that claim a, quote, total lie. Gas prices, meanwhile, hit a record high this Labor Day weekend amid the ongoing war and

refinery issues. The average price was $4.14 a gallon heading into the holiday, which is nearly a dollar higher than last year and breaks the previous record of $3.82.82 a gallon from 2012. That's according to AAA. And while the Iran war is largely to blame for the high prices, there have also been disruptions from other suppliers, including refineries and tax. Texas that are operating at 98% due to extreme heat. Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, also had things to say about those high gas prices yesterday. The Trump administration, as you heard last year at Labor Day, incredibly low gas prices at the end of peak driving season. Yes, they're higher today, but we're doing everything we can

to push them down. The marketplace thinks gasoline prices are going to move meaningfully lower. So trust the market, certainly don't trust my predictions. But we're doing everything we can to grow the production of gasoline. As we pass Labor Day tomorrow, you'll start to see demand decline as we move out of summer driving season. So the Trump administration is leaning in heavily in that area. And in the game of shifting goalposts, Wright, also blamed Joe Biden and the war in Ukraine for those rising prices. But joining us now to talk all about it is decorated combat veteran and former commander of U.S. Army, Europe, retired Army, Lieutenant General Mark Hurtling. He's an MS Now military analyst.

Also with us, MS Now, senior national security reporter, David Rode. David, I want to start with you, because right after we got off the air from the weekend yesterday, this exclusion zone was announced by the Iranians. Can you give us some more details on what exactly this means and the consequences it could have? It seems to broaden the area where Iran says it will attack tankers. It's a extending it from that sort of narrow straight, in the narrow gap in the street in Hormuz where most attacks have occurred to a larger area that's closer to this farther out in the open ocean, the Gulf of Oman, where the U.S. starts, is carrying out its own blockade.

So it's an effort by this figure in particular, who's a hardliner, he's the new head of the National Security Committee in Parliament, to say that Iran is going to be more aggressive in targeting ships trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz. They actually targeted U.S. ships. That was what was so extraordinary over the weekend, where they fired cruise missiles at U.S. Navy ships, including an aircraft carrier.

Those did not hit their targets. But I think it's an effort by Iran to be more aggressive and try to push back on the U.S. blockade of the street. Well, in general, when David says broadening the area, that does underscore the reality here that goes against what we've heard repeatedly from President Trump, which is that the Strait of Hormuz or the Trump Strait, as he calls it, is 100% under U.S. control. Is that right, what's your assessment of the status of the Strait, which is essentially the holdup and the linchpin in this entire war?

Yeah, Jackie, there have been some ships getting out and into the Straits on the Omani side. But the continued proclamations by Washington that this is a military conflict or not a war, and that it describes, something resembling peace or limited hostilities while American and Iranian forces continue to fire missiles and destroy ships, it just shows that there's an attempted spin, just like there were on the gas prices. But it is going to be increasingly tenuous in that area if Iran actually tries to execute what they're suggesting they're going to do. The interesting part of this, I think, is their collaboration with Oman, That has been going on for a couple of months now. But when you talk about an exclusion zone, that means they're going to stop ships in one way or another or threaten them,

which will cause the merchant fleet to not want to go into those areas. And they seem like they're not going to deliver oil to any ships that are part of their particular sanctions, not ours. So it continues to increase the potential for this spiraling a bit more and including other Gulf nations. because we've heard from multiple oil-producing Gulf nations that they are very concerned about this, and they want the United States to do something about it while at the same time not having the forces to do anything against Iran. It's still basically the same situation we've had, and we've heard other members of the administration say that the solution for this is to build oil pipelines. Well, that will take years, not weeks or months. we're still in a very bad economic situation, and the military can help convoy ships in and out of there.

But I'm not sure the merchant fleet's going to be one to do that, given the cost to insurance and the potential danger to their sailors. So, David, as we've sailed over the six-month anniversary of this war, where are we exactly in terms of negotiations? Because to add to the list of contradictions that we've heard from this administration just this week, the president is saying that he doesn't want to. engage in any negotiations whatsoever. And then you have J.D. Vance, who in a briefing, again on Thursday, said that if Iran did stop targeting vessels in the strait, that that would be a concession that they would, and all of branches that they would take to come back to the negotiating table for finally this long delayed, what is it, third round of negotiations. What are you hearing about that? I'm hearing that negotiations that are at a standstill. The Omani's actually frustrated.

with the Iranians. Iman Moyhildeen, our colleague, had a tip that they were close to a deal, I would say about 10 days ago or two weeks ago, and nothing came of that. So I think there's a lot of posturing on both sides. The bottom line to me is that the Iranians are going to try to block the Strait of Hormuz, I think, through the midterm elections in the U.S. You'll see these continued flare-ups between the two sides, but I don't think the Iranians are going to make any major concessions. They see President Trump is under intense political pressure. as long as gas prices remain high through the midterm elections. General Hurling, I wanted to get your sense, and I know you're not a naval officer, but the strain on the U.S. Navy at this point,

there's at least 19 or 20 ships there. The Lincoln story, our colleague Priester, has written about this. What do you see happening to the U.S. Navy? Can it maintain this blockade? And how dangerous is it that we don't have a carrier in the Pacific at this point near Taiwan? Yeah, it's very dangerous. First of all, I'll address the Pacific issue. That has emptied up the South China Sea. It is allowed China to do more things against their three circles, which include Taiwan, and they're continuing to do things around the island of Taiwan that will increasingly cause concern. But in terms of the ships that are in the Gulf right now, I have talked to some of my Navy counterparts. And what they mentioned, is, you know, the Lincoln and the Washington are both nuclear-powered ships. The cruisers and the destroyers that in there are mostly not. So you have more wear and tear on those ships in terms of their engines and their steaming capability, but it's also just the same kind of moral issue with the sailors who are on board those two dozen ships that are conducting convoy

operations. And that's, by the way, that's a tough mission. You not only have to coordinate with the merchants that are attempting to pass through the area that the United States is established near the coast of Oman. But you also have the issues of morale with the soldiers, excuse me, with the sailors and with their families back home. That continues. This has been an extremely long deployment. And having been on long deployments that are different from the Navy and much easier than what the Navy's experience. And I'll say that because the Navy is 24-7. They don't get a day off, they're working 12-hour shifts on those ships. And it's extremely, it turns into dog days, David. You know, I mean, when you're talking about being in a combat zone and worried about

being struck and at the same time conducting your work or whatever you do on a cruiser or a destroyer, it turns into what we used to call dog days. Every day is the same. You start breaking down in terms of your approach to your work. And it just becomes tougher and tougher as each day goes on. We're going to take a little detour now to Ukraine. U.S. envoy, Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner, met with Ukrainian president, Vladimir Zelensky, in Kiev yesterday. That was amid escalating aerial strikes between Russia and Ukraine that have been happening recently. It was their second stop on a diplomatic trip meant to revive the efforts to end the war in Ukraine. There were three rounds of talks, including one with national security advisors from the UK, France, and Germany. Just the day before,

Whitkoff and Kushner met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. That meeting lasted more than three hours, and it ended without any breakthroughs. An advisor for Putin characterized those conversations as constructive and useful, adding that it went far beyond the war and touched on potential joint economic ventures between Russia and the United States. David, it seems like this administration has not paid very much attention to Ukraine, during the first 18 months. I'm wondering if you see any connection or any interplay between this war and the administration

maybe needing a favor from Russia when it comes to the Iranian war, if you feel like that is the impetus for Wyckhoff and Kushner deciding to resume these talks and overall, just how productive you think these conversations went. It essentially looks like Kushner and Witkoff are starting from scratch. One of the interesting facts about this trip, which I didn't realize until I read it. So Kushner has never been to Moscow before. So this is his first trip there since President Trump returned to office nearly 18 months ago. And Whitkoff hasn't been there in months.

And then what's also surprised me was that neither man, Whitkoff nor Kushner, had been to Kiev before it was their first trip there. And that just shows, on all the timing of all this, That just shows how the Iran war has distracted the Trump administration from Ukraine. There Wittkov's leading negotiations before the Iran war started. There was some progress there. But things have been in a standstill because of Iran. So I think it's good that they're there.

It's tireless efforts by, you know, Kushner, who we see trying to solve multiple conflicts. He was trying to negotiate an end to Gaza also recently. But I just think they're just starting over again and we're not going to see any immediate progress. General, what's your reaction to this weekend's meetings? Yeah, Jackie, I'd say that you have two individuals who are not seasoned diplomats. You know, you see some of the films and some of the dynamics that come out of the meeting with Putin between Kushner and Witkoff, and it is very discouraging. If you've ever seen a negotiation with a major power, especially one like Putin, and any time you deal with any of the Russians,

I used to deal with the Russian military on a normal basis, but they will always try and get an advantage. When you see some of the reports of Mr. Wickoff fawning over President Putin and basically saying how he and the other Russian negotiators will always remember these days of negotiations and how fun it was, and he didn't say that. I'm sorry, I'm overstating. But he basically said, what a lifelong experience it's been to do this. And I understand in diplomatic arrangements where you have to compliment the individual, but you also have to stay strong in what your negotiation tactics are. Now, when they first go to Russia and then go to Kiev, which they've never been to before, as David just said, Zelensky described their talks as substantive, which is kind of diplomatic speak

for at least they talked about it. But Zelensky also asked them, what is Russia proposing? And it seems from the reports out of Russia that there hasn't been a change in terms of what Russia is proposing since the very beginning of the war in terms of Ukrainian concessions. So what you see, I think, in both the Iranian war and in the Ukraine-Russian war, there's an extremely dangerous gap between diplomatic rhetoric and battlefield reality. And this is not only affecting the dynamics between the countries, but it's also affecting the rest of the world because they know what's going on. Europe knows what's going on in

Ukraine and the Middle East knows what's going on in Iran. And to have the positive spin to the extreme, it just is going to make a whole lot of decisions tougher later on. It is not the kind of negotiations that we see producing a whole lot of benefits. Yeah, in general, Derek Kushner was actually pressed by NBC News correspondent Richard Engel yesterday on their diplomatic record. It is an exchange worth watching. But David and the general are sticking with us because we want to get your reaction to the reporting that members of the U.S. military's joint staff were asked to take polygraph tests last month related to leak investigations. Also ahead, what we're learning this morning about a deadly crash at Miami's International Airport involving an Amazon cargo plane. We're going to be back in

just 90 seconds. New York Times is reporting that roughly 50 members of the U.S. military's joint staff were asked to take polygraph tests last month related to leaked information to the press. According to the Times, government investigators asked military officers and civilian employees if they disclosed classified information to journalists and whether they provided information about diminished U.S. munition stocks. The paper points out that mass polygraph tests like this have never been administered to the top ranks of the U.S. military in modern history. In a statement, Pentagon spokesman, Sean Parnell, said that this department, quote, does not comment on internal personnel or investigative matters, but takes all leaks of classified national security information extremely seriously and investigates accordingly. General Hurling, what's your reaction to this reporting and this seemingly unprecedented action?

Yeah, Jackie, this was an extremely disturbing story from me because having worked on the joint staff once is one of the principals. and knowing the dynamics of the Secretary of Defense Operations book, this probably consisted of many of the people that contribute to that book. In fact, if not many, all of them. And you get more than the operators contributing to the status of American forces around the world. You get the logisticians, you get the acquisition folks, you get those who are delivering ammunition. So this is a wide swat of people likely from every single staff section that contributes to the book.

And as you said, this has never happened before. And I would only say that, you know, if I were a member of the joint staff today and someone came around with a list of people they wanted to polygraph, that would infuriate me because it's basically saying we have no trust in the people who contribute to national security at the highest levels of command. What you also have to take into account, I'm all for doing an investigation in leakers. I've seen that happen many times before, and it's appropriate because it is illegal to leak things to the press that are classified. But in this case, to do this kind of everybody step up and take a test so we can prove you're not lying or leaking information,

it's just it goes against everything that I've believed about what the military does. And Jackie, to me, and I'm going to take the reporter position here. The bottom line here is that Defense Secretary Pete Hegsteth's responsibilities to make sure there are enough unique. for American forces to defend themselves when they're at war. That is what 50,000 Americans are doing right now in the Gulf. So this was leaked. It's sensitive information. But I think ignoring the reality that they don't have the munitions they need to defend

themselves is a bigger problem. There's also been very limited briefings given to Congress, a co-equal branch of government, the oversight committees. It's frustrated Republicans and Democrats, particularly on the Senate Armed Services Committee. So I think it's good the information came out. And I'm not sure that this tactic will work in terms of stuff. stopping vital information like this becoming public. Very helpful context.

MS now, senior national security reporter David Rode and retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hurtling. Thank you both for joining us this Labor Day. Thank you, Jack. And coming up, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court for a third time now to allow the president's restrictions for voting by mail. We'll have this latest in the ongoing legal fight

and what it could mean for the midterm straight ahead. We'll be right back. Investigators are trying to determine. what caused an Amazon cargo plane to barrel off of the runway at Miami International Airport yesterday afternoon killing five people. Officials say that five others were also injured after the plane overran the runway and struck several vehicles. It wasn't immediately clear whether the pilots survived or if those killed were in vehicles struck by the plane. According to the FAA, the Boeing aircraft was arriving from San Juan, Puerto Rico. While the cause of the crash is

unclear this morning, thunderstorms and wind gusts up to 30 miles per hour were recorded in the area at the time. Elsewhere, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court for the third time to allow restrictions on mail-in voting to be implemented before November. That's despite some states already sending out mail-in ballots for the midterms. The emergency request comes after a federal judge on Friday extended a block on the Postal Service from enforcing President Trump's executive order that creates a national voter list and curtails mail-in voting. Previously, the High Court allowed the plan to move forward without ruling on whether it was legal or not. States run by Democrats have teamed up with voting rights groups to challenge the

executive order as unconstitutional. It's important to note that nearly one-third of voters in the U.S. cast mail-in ballots, including President Trump himself. Now, let's bring in former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Dave Aaronberg, and MS now legal analyst Charles Coleman. Thank you both for joining us this morning. Charles, I want to start with you because you have said that the central question that is the issue here, as with so many things that this president has done, is the issue of executive overreach. Can you go into that a little bit more and why the Supreme Court has allowed this to become the central issue time and time again? Well, Jackie, I think that's hitting the nail right on the head in as much as we're seeing a tug of war of power between the executive branch and the states here. And I think that it goes back all the way to, you know, if we want to go back to seventh grade civics class, to Hamiltonian versus Jeffersonian politics. And as much as Donald Trump has continued to push the limits of executive power into spaces that the Constitution specifically enumerates for the state. And

And in this example, it's elections. The Constitution allows states to make pretty broad determinations about how they choose to run their elections. And in this case, what Donald Trump is attempting to do is relegated to the states by the Constitution. And so why the Supreme Court has allowed it thus far without saying it's illegal or legal is beyond me. But what these states attorneys general are saying in this lawsuit that has moved forward in Boston at this point, is that the president cannot do these things. And so it is a fight between the states and the president and the executive branch. And it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this.

Because if they give Donald Trump even an inch or a modicum of leeway here, we're going to see a drastic change to how our elections occur nationally. So, Dave, I want to stick a little bit more with that context that Charles just laid out, which is that the Supreme Court could have avoided this mess a few weeks ago if they had decided to rule on the merits and not on standing. Can you explain why they're doing this? Jackie, good to be with you and Charles. I mean, yeah, they had a chance to nip this in the butt early on. The court instead chose to so uncertainty and confusion.

And as to why, well, I think they just want to prolong the agony here because they had this broad view of executive power. and they don't like to tell President Trump no. By the way, they were very quick to tell President Biden no on a lot of his executive orders, like public safety mandates and student loaned forgiveness. But when it comes to Trump, they'll wait until the end to finally tell him no. Judge Talwani put it simply here that the Constitution does not grant the president any specific power over elections. You have the elections clause. Article 1, Section 4, the Constitution gives that power to the state,

subject to alteration by Congress. So the president cannot unilaterally invent nationwide election standards or ballot handling hurdles through an executive order or agency regulation. And President Trump is hoping that the Supreme Court's broad view of executive power will essentially write the elections clause of the Constitution out of existence. But it's a hard thing to ignore, especially for justices who claim to be strict constructionists and especially with the midterms right around the corner and Trump's executive order would just create mass chaos. And one last thing, the Postal Service is not supposed to double as election police. And even though the Trump administration tried to argue that the Postal Service was acting under

the authority of Congress, Judge Talwani's order made the important point that throughout the body of election legislation, Congress has never delegated its election clause power to the Postal Service. So, Charles, if the Supreme Court decides to uphold the administration's position here. What happens next? I mean, mail and ballots are already out in North Carolina. Do those votes just go uncounted? Well, Jackie, I think that's one of the questions that a lot of people have, because those answers are not clear. We are already at a point that mail and ballots have gone out. And I think you were right to point out in your lead in that Donald Trump himself,

the president, is someone who uses mail and ballots. And so questioning the integrity of this system, particularly at a time that's right before midterms, is really some of the president. something that draws a lot of concern from a number of people because what it seems like is that this is just an attempt to control something that is a solution looking for a problem. We have not seen the type of election integrity problems that warrant this level of control or change from the executive branch. Yet it seems to be something that the president continues to be fixated on. And so when we're talking about what will happen to the mail and ballots that are already out in a system that seems to already have a significant amount of integrity as is,

that is among the things that will confuse everyone involved, which is bad for elections in this country as a whole. And Dave, I've got to ask you before we run out of time about the other trial that we have all been watching, the Lindsay Clancy trial, which ended on Friday with the judge declaring a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked. Clancy's lawyers have argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and shouldn't be held criminally responsible for killing her three young children in 2023. What's your reaction to this? And what happens next? Are we going to see this trial happen all over again? Jackie, I was never surprised that they couldn't get a conviction on the murder counts.

I thought it was nearly impossible on that because you had defense experts show that Clancy was suffering from postparton psychosis and lacked some level of criminal responsibility. This wasn't a case whether the defendant was like on the dating scene and trying to escape motherhood like we've seen in other cases. And she was prescribed all these powerful meds. And so that was a hurdle to prosecution had trouble to overcome. I know they tried to show that she was cold, calculated, deliberate, premeditated, but the medical experts were pretty compelling. And I think that when you are on the back end of an 11 to 1 verdict, and that's apparently what it was in favor of acquittal, that the district attorney, who I know and is a great guy and well respected, but I think in the end that they're not going to go to trial on this again. They'll push forward.

They'll continue moving forward and then have settlement negotiations. I would be surprised if he did this. I mean, why put your hand through the meat grinder again? I mean, 11-1 is a message to you just to stay away. Former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Aaron Burke and MS now legal analyst Charles Coleman. Thank you both for joining us this morning. Thank you. And up next.

We'll dig into President Trump's social media habits after he went on yet another posting spree yesterday, spending hours online with AI-generated content. Plus, the President's Superpack is making its first contribution ahead of the midterms dropping $10 million in the Texas Senate race. We're going to look at whether that amount of money is enough to move the needle amid polling that's showing a very tight contest. We'll be back in just a moment. President Trump spent several hours yesterday on truth social, posting AI-generated slop. His social media spree started just before noon with an AI image of Robert De Niro, falsely portraying the actor, a harsh critic of his, as now supporting him. About two hours later, he posted an image of George Washington visiting him in the Oval. office. Then there was a post that made some headlines suggesting that New Mexico should be renamed

as New America. How creative. About an hour later, he put up an image of his face on Hulk Hogan's body. Another post that's getting a lot of attention. An AI generated image of him apparently trading stocks while sitting at the resolute desk. The caption reads in part, I do this for our country, not myself. I've made hundreds of billions of dollars on stocks and many other type of holdings for the USA, not myself, and all I do is get criticized. Around 7.30 last night, Trump again posted about changing the name of New Mexico with this AI-generated video of him putting America on a sign and then dancing to the YMCA. Trump rally favorite. The president's final post of the day came just after 10 p.m. last night. It was a video of a Fox News segment about him.

The Daily Beast reports that Trump's social media habit has hit a new extreme last month. sharing more than 1,000 posts, roughly 33 posts a day. Let's bring an MS now. White House reporter, Jake Trailer. Jake, while the president is not posting on social media, he's supposed to be ostensibly focused on the November midterms. It is now, what is the countdown less than 60 days away. The super PAC associated with Trump is now going to be spending $10 million on advertisements in the closely watched Texas Senate race.

That was a new development from this weekend. And it's the first significant expense in a general election contest that the Super PAC has committed to after Republicans for several weeks now have been pretty concerned, at least in background quotes, to reporters about whether or not Trump's outside expenditures are going to use their cash advantage and actually start spending money. But in Texas, a state where Trump beat Kamala Harris by 14 points in 2024. Why are they starting there? It is crazy, Jackie. If you would have told us two years ago that wear Maga, Inc., with all of the coffers that it has, all the hundreds of millions of dollars it has,

they'd be spending so far this close to Election Day in South Carolina and Texas to sensibly red states, I think we would probably not believe it. We've seen the president go all in on Texas, wanting the midterm convention to obviously be there. This is a state that would be such a loss. if the Senate truly did go to Tala Rico, if it did go Democrat here.

The president has had, it seems his mind made up from folks that we've talked to. We know that the president very much wants this convention in Dallas. He wants ad spending in Dallas. He's in Texas, rather. He's very centered on this as an issue. And I think I'm not going to make the mistake of trying to get in President Trump's head here,

but it would be such a loss to lose Texas. But what happens is with this much focus on Texas, where is the president not putting his attention? What midterm races is he not focusing on that will potentially lead to losing the House. That's a real clear thing to focus on, too. Yeah, it is confusing to try to sort through the tea leaves here because I feel like you've heard the same thing from White House officials, campaign officials, that they're not actually worried about Texas. But at the same time, it is the first move, major move that they've made. And they are concerned about other places that they shouldn't be concerned about, like Iowa.

I mean, where else do you expect or are you hearing that MAGA Inc. is going to be spending next on candidates? And is it going to be candidate specific? Or are we going to just continue to see them try to pull up Trump's approval ratings? Yeah, that's a great question because there's a clear distinction to make here. Because the issue that Republican midterm candidates are facing right now, especially those in swing districts or moderate districts, is that what they cannot have right now is this be a referendum on Donald Trump. at the voting polls because he's so underwater on affordability on all the things. His approval rating. They need it to be about the candidate and needs to be localized about them. The ad buys that we've seen so far, and this could absolutely change,

with ad buys we've seen so far, the actual advertisements themselves are still all about Donald Trump. They're him giving a state of the union address. It's him talking about the things that he's done. These candidates don't need that. Now, what they do need is they do need actual localized money and support from MAGA, from Trump's super PAC that's aligned with him. They do need his basis.

out for them. So they're in this kind of catch-22 sort of moment. The folks that are close to Maggie Inc. are telling us, telling our friends at MS now, that they're going to spend everywhere, that we're going to see it. Trump's saying he's going to go to all 35 locations over the next couple months, which is probably not possible. But that's what we're going to see. The problem is we're still not seeing it yet. And there's this kind of conversation of when it's too late. There are plenty of Republican strategists who are already saying the fact that it still hasn't happened yet is an issue. There are some saying, It's okay to wait.

But we keep hearing it's going to come. It just hasn't happened yet. Yeah. Yeah. And as Michael Sherer told us yesterday, a perennial debate on the timeline of spending. But something we're going to be looking closely at. MSNOW, White Dess reporter, Jake, Traylor.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning. And at the table, we appreciate it. And up next, we'll go through Friday's jobs report with numbers that were much better than expected, led by one group in particular. We'll tell you who that is straight ahead on MS Now reports. The Labor Department says U.S. employers added 160,000 jobs in August, holding the unemployment rate at 4.1% and easing concerns that a hiring slowdown has taken hold. Friday's jobs report showed that the labor market grew modestly over the past two months. With August, job gains coming in at more than three times what economists had expected.

And according to a CNBC analysis of that data, women accounted for 158,000. or around 98% of the jobs added in the month, signaling the latest sign of the growing power of women in the labor market. And joining us now, economics reporter for Axios, Courtney, Brown, Courtney, long time no see. Thank you for joining us. I know this on Saturday, I believe it was, we had talked about how a lot of people weren't really paying attention to these labor numbers,

despite them being pretty good because of the end of the day. They're not that connected. to what's going to be a big upcoming week for reporters and economists and the American public, which is basically what I think we should just call inflation week. Can you talk a little bit about that? Yeah, you're exactly right. So the jobs report was like a little pit stop on the way to the big important consumer price index inflation report that comes out on Friday. This is the most important inflation report in like recent memory because a lot of what the Fed does later this month with respect to whether they hold rates steady or do the first interest rate hike in a while

comes down to this inflation report. We got a little bit of a signal from a top Fed official last week that said, basically, if this inflation report on Friday comes in OK, he didn't define what OK means, so that'll be the big topic of debate. But if it comes in OK, he would be OK with holding rates steady. If inflation comes in a little bit hot or there isn't a lot of sign inflation is continuing to cool, then he might be interested in raising rates. And this is a big deal.

I mean, the president is, we saw on Truth Social over the last few days, he's very concerned about the fact that the Fed might raise rates. He's calling for lower rates. Vice President Vance also calling for lower rates. So we could see this clash between the Federal Reserve and the White House. Because lower rates is just going to make inflation even hotter, no? I mean, but has the president come to the realization yet that lower rates is not going, is going to be hurting his overall economic record? Because it seems like, at least what you indicated on Saturday, was that him and Kevin Warsh have had some behind-the-scenes conversations.

And it seems like Warsh has gotten more comfortable with the idea of not lowering rates. I do think that Trump's, the economists around Trump understand this. But it would require President Trump admitting that inflation is a problem for him to say, okay, lower rates might make it worse. You would have to accept that inflation is a problem, which the Fed believes it is. They go for 2%. Inflation this week is supposed to come in at 3.4%. So meaningfully above where the Fed targets.

But we do hear the economists around Trump. They're not necessarily calling for lower interest rates. We saw Kevin Hassett, who is President Trump's top economist. He was calling for rates to be steady. Like, to me, that is more reasonable than calling for lower interest rates because of exactly what you say. Inflation has a problem. The Middle East conflict has made inflation worse.

And we don't know when that conflict will end and when the inflationary pressures from that war will recede. So a lot of factors kind of pushing up inflation with no clue when they will end. Okay. And I'm not going to put you on the spot and get you to make a prediction for the next to report. Do you have a sense of up or down, steady, what that number will be? And if you do, what is the number one indicator you're looking at that you think will forecast that? So I, you're not putting me on the spot because economists have done the wonky math and they have their predictions already.

And so they're forecasting that CPI will come in at 3.4%. Okay. That would be steady from the last month. So if they're right, and as we know with the jobs report, they're not always right. The jobs numbers came in triple what they were expecting. So if they're right, we would have to look under the hood to see if there's meaningful cooling that would satisfy some of the Fed officials at the Federal Reserve to call for rates to be steady. But one thing to watch is we know there's a meaningfully,

meaningful cohort of Fed officials who want to raise rates. At the last Fed meeting, they dissented. And this is very controversial in the Fed World. They were like, no, no, we want to raise rates. They came out and they dissented. And so that's going to be something to watch, whether this inflation report is enough to satisfy the cohort that already thinks rates should be higher. Well, we'll have to have you on next week to break this all down again.

Economics Reporter for Axis. Courtney Brown, thank you so much. And that does it for us this morning. state of play with Peter Alexander. We'll start after a final break.